Dispatches from the 10th Crusade

What’s Wrong with the World
is dedicated to the defense of
what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of
the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the
Jihad and Liberalism...read more

Rachel N. Cryer, 30, said she had gone to the Gresham bakery on Jan. 17 for a scheduled appointment to order a wedding cake. She met with the owner, Aaron Klein. Klein asked for the date of the wedding and names of the bride and groom, Cryer said. "I told him, 'There are two brides and our names are Rachel and Laurel,' " according to her complaint. Klein responded that his business does not provide its services for same-sex weddings, she said. "Respondent cited a religious belief for its refusal to make cakes for same-sex couples planning to marry," the complaint says.

[…]

"We are committed to a fair and thorough investigation to determine whether there's substantial evidence of unlawful discrimination," said Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian. He advocated for the 2007 law when he was a state senator.

[…]

"Everybody is entitled to their own beliefs, but that doesn't mean that folks have the right to discriminate," Avakian said, speaking generally. An administrative law judge could assess civil penalties. "The goal is never to shut down a business. The goal is to rehabilitate," Avakian said. "For those who do violate the law, we want them to learn from that experience and have a good, successful business in Oregon."

The near future:

The word ended in a gasp of pain. The needle of the dial had shot up to fifty-five. The sweat had sprung out all over [Aaron’s] body. The air tore into his lungs and issued again in deep groans which even by clenching his teeth he could not stop. [Avakian] watched him, [the definition of “marriage” written on an index card] still extended. He drew back the lever. This time the pain was only slightly eased.

‘[What is marriage, Aaron]?’

‘[The conjugal union of a man and woman, designed for the bearing and rearing of children].’

The needle must have risen again, but he did not look at it. The heavy, stern face and the [index card] filled his vision. [The index card with the definition] stood up before his eyes, enormous, blurry, and seeming to vibrate, but unmistakably [with the words “simple companionship for adult fulfillment.”]

‘No, [Aaron], that is no use. You are lying. You still think [marriage is the conjugal union of a man and a woman, design for the bearing and rearing of children. What is marriage], please?’

[...Later...]

‘Do you know where you are, [Aaron]?’ he said.

‘I don’t know. I can guess. In the Ministry of Love.’

‘Do you know how long you have been here?’

‘I don’t know. Days, weeks, months – I think it is months.’

‘And why do you imagine we bring people to this place?’

‘To make them confess.’

‘No, that is not the reason. Try again.’

‘To punish them.’

‘No!’ exclaimed [Avakian]. His voice had changed extraordinarily, and his face and become both stern and animated. ‘No! Not merely to extract your confession, not to punish you. Shall I tell you why we have brought you here? To [rehabilitate] you! To make you sane! Will you understand, [Aaron], that no one whom we bring to this place ever leaves our hands uncured? We are not interested in those stupid crimes that you have committed. The [Democratic] Party is not interested in the overt act: the thought is all we care about. We do not merely destroy our enemies, we change them. Do you understand what I mean by that?’

‘The first thing for you to understand is that in this place there are no martyrdoms. You have read of the religious persecutions of the past. In the Middle Ages there was an Inquisition. It was a failure. It set out to eradicate heresy, and ended by perpetuating it. For every heretic it burned at the stake, thousands of others rose up. Why was that? Because the Inquisition killed its enemies in the open, and killed them while they were still unrepentant. Men were dying because they would not abandon their true beliefs. Naturally, all the glory went to the victim and all the shame to the Inquisitor who burned him. Later, in the twentieth century, there were the totalitarians as they were called. There were the German Nazis and the Russian Communists. The Russians persecuted heresy more cruelly than the Inquisition had done. And they imagine that they had learned from the mistakes of the past; they knew, at any rate, that one must not make martyrs. Before they exposed their victims to public trial, they deliberately set themselves to destroy their dignity. They wore them down by torture and solitude until they were despicable, cringing wretches, confessing whatever was put into their mouths, covering themselves with abuse, accusing and sheltering behind one another, whimpering for mercy. And yet after only a few years the same thing had happened over again. The dead men had become martyrs and their degradation was forgotten. Once again, why was it? In the first place, because the confessions that they had made were obviously extorted and untrue. We do not make mistakes of that kind. All the confessions that are uttered here are true. We make them true. And above all we do not allow the dead to rise up against us. You must stop imagining that posterity will vindicate you [Aaron]. Posterity will never hear of you. You will be lifted clean out from the stream of history. We shall turn you into gas and pour you into the stratosphere. Nothing will remain of you, not a name in the register, not a memory in a living brain. You will be annihilated in the past as well as in the future. You will never have existed.’

Then why bother to torture me? thought [Aaron], with a momentary bitterness. [Avakian] checked his step as though [Aaron] has uttered the thought aloud. His large ugly face came nearer, with the eyes a little narrowed.

‘You are thinking,’ he said, ‘that since we intend to destroy you utterly, so that nothing you say or do can make the smallest difference—in that case, why do we go to the trouble of interrogating you first? That is what you were thinking, was it not?’

‘Yes,’ said [Aaron].

[Avakian] smiled slightly. ‘You are a flaw in the pattern, [Aaron]. You are a stain that must be wiped out. Did I not tell you just now that we are different from the persecutors of the past? We are not content with negative obedience, nor even with the most abject submission. When finally you surrender to us, it must be of your own free will. We do not destroy the heretic because he resists us: so long as he resists us we never destroy him. We [rehabilitate] him, we capture his inner mind, we reshape him. We burn all evil and all illusion out of him; we bring him over to our side, not in appearance, but genuinely, heart and soul. We make him one of ourselves before we kill him. It is intolerable to us that an erroneous thought [about gays and gay marriage] should exist anywhere in the world, however secret and powerless it may be. Even in the instant of death we cannot permit any deviation. In the old days the heretic walked to the stake still a heretic, proclaiming his heresy, exulting in it. Even the victim of the Russian purges could carry rebellion locked up in his skull as he walked down the passage waiting for the bullet. But we make the brain perfect before we blow it out. The command of the old despotisms was “Thou shalt not”. The command of the totalitarians was “thou shalt”. Our command is “THOU ART”

Comments (20)

1984 is one of those books that I see both liberals AND conservatives quote from to make whatever points they want to make. Perhaps that's where its power lies. It does not outline a certain "type" of future. It outlines the inevitable future that will result no matter what type of totalitarian government forms, conservative or liberal. Maybe that's where its power lies.

I always preferred "Brave new World". Simultaneously more frightening and more oddly optimistic.

But, MarcA, ask yourself--who is actually trying to force people, really force people, to change their deepest interior attitudes right now? The left or the right? As far as I'm concerned, for anyone with eyes in his head, the answer is obvious.

Naturally, I agree with you. I just find it interesting that 1984 is often quoted by both the right AND left (Actually, it's similar to "Lord of the Flies" in this respect). Something in this book needs to speak to a really universal fear, that whoever your enemy is will somehow find a way inside of your mind.

I think for some conservatives, what's horrifying about 1984 is the prospect of what the government is capable of if you give it too much power.

And I think for some liberals, what's horrifying about 1984 is the prospect of what such a government does if it falls into the wrong hands instead of the right hands.

That said...

"Everybody is entitled to their own beliefs, but that doesn't mean that folks have the right to discriminate," Avakian said, speaking generally. An administrative law judge could assess civil penalties. "The goal is never to shut down a business. The goal is to rehabilitate," Avakian said. "For those who do violate the law, we want them to learn from that experience and have a good, successful business in Oregon."

You know, I was going to say 'I suspect that when they say rehabilitate, they don't mean "we're going to make you change your views" but "we're just going to instruct you as to why you can't discriminate the way you did, without trying to change your views." But you know, that's optimistic without warrant, and it's not as if either view isn't odious.

It should not come to this. What is objected to even on the most stringent Christian view is action, not being. This is insane.

I think for some conservatives, what's horrifying about 1984 is the prospect of what the government is capable of if you give it too much power.

And I think for some liberals, what's horrifying about 1984 is the prospect of what such a government does if it falls into the wrong hands instead of the right hands.

That may be true, Crude. It would at least explain both sides' anxiety about it. But I wonder, why is it that for the liberals, they are perfectly willing that government should tell us both what to think and do (as long as government is in the right hands) EXCEPT for bedroom activity, for which it is not permissible for government to tell us what to do nor tell us what is normal to want to do? But even so it is OK for the government to tell us what to think about OTHERS' bedroom activity?

You know, I was going to say 'I suspect that when they say rehabilitate, they don't mean "we're going to make you change your views" but "we're just going to instruct you as to why you can't discriminate the way you did, without trying to change your views." But you know, that's optimistic without warrant, and it's not as if either view isn't odious.

Is there really a difference?

That is, if this person's "views" are that he MUST NOT COOPERATE WITH AN EVIL ACT and this is why he refused the service, then instructing him as to why he "can't discriminate the way he did" is in fact the same thing as trying to change his views.

That may be true, Crude. It would at least explain both sides' anxiety about it. But I wonder, why is it that for the liberals, they are perfectly willing that government should tell us both what to think and do (as long as government is in the right hands) EXCEPT for bedroom activity, for which it is not permissible for government to tell us what to do nor tell us what is normal to want to do? But even so it is OK for the government to tell us what to think about OTHERS' bedroom activity?

Honestly, Tony? I think it's a lie that they don't think it's permissible for government to do that.

I'm not including all liberals in this, but really - I think quite a number of liberals would be very happy to promote government oversight into bedrooms. I think you just have to look at feminist reactions to everything from pornography to 'sexist portrayals of women' to more to see a hint of that. They can be every bit as puritan as the most puritan conservatives, with at best slightly different emphases.

That is, if this person's "views" are that he MUST NOT COOPERATE WITH AN EVIL ACT and this is why he refused the service, then instructing him as to why he "can't discriminate the way he did" is in fact the same thing as trying to change his views.

Superficially I'd say there's a difference, in principle. Along the lines of how the government may not allow a state to pass and enforce a sectarian law, but at the same time they do not necessarily plan on discouraging your sectarianism. But in practice, and in this case? Yeah. I think it's very clear at this point that 'using the force of law to get people to change their minds, or be afraid of opposing them' is part of the plan and motive now.

Orthodoxy questions reform run amok!
I am very pleased.
Humanity will hopefully regain a balance of consciousness.
To impinge upon freedom of association is to dictate what people will think of others. Such policy is totalitarian at its very heart.
Care to have the government choose, by omission or fiat, your neighbors and friends?
Not sure who to like and who not to like?
Personal integrity, it's taboo, y'know!

I'm not including all liberals in this, but really - I think quite a number of liberals would be very happy to promote government oversight into bedrooms. I think you just have to look at feminist reactions to everything from pornography to 'sexist portrayals of women' to more to see a hint of that. They can be every bit as puritan as the most puritan conservatives, with at best slightly different emphases.

Which is why social conservatives sometimes make the mistake of making common cause with them on selective issues. They simply don't realize that feminism is inherently a Marxist ideology and that it should be opposed unconditionally for that reason alone. Feminism is not so much a facet of the culture of death as it is the vanguard of the culture of death.

Which is why social conservatives sometimes make the mistake of making common cause with them on selective issues.

Agreed.

It's funny though. Just a few years ago, I remember the whole 'wardrobe malfunction' with... Janet Jackson I think? But at the time, the outrage at that was mocked by a lot on the left. Oh look at the people afraid of some nudity or sexuality, etc.

Now? A female video game character in somewhat revealing clothing can cause frantic outrage in many liberal quarters.

Speaking of video games, they're starting to go after games like Grand Theft Auto 5 because of how it "portrays women." Nevermind the fact that this is a game that lets you murder, torture, rob, etc. We can't have women "mistreated" or "marginalized" as strippers and prostitutes in a game like that! This is a slippery slope that invariably leads to Hollywood feeling justified in putting puppy kicking into R-rated movies.

His thesis is more or less that if people aren't Christians they make up all sorts of taboos of their own out of a sense of guilt. These taboos in the modern liberal state take the form of requiring people to express guilt for being homophobic, insufficiently environmentally aware, using some term claimed to be "racist" (think of the fuss over a sports team named "Redskins"), etc. Since human beings really are sinners, they have a psychological urge to purge themselves of guilt, but without Christianity they often flail culturally when it comes to locating the actual source of that guilt.

His thesis is more or less that if people aren't Christians they make up all sorts of taboos of their own out of a sense of guilt.

Agreed. And when I have the misfortune of being around someone going on one of their ideologically-addled tears, I have to resist the urge to snark, "Thank you, but am only allowed one narrative of Guilt and Redemption per lifetime, and I've already picked the one that happens to be true."

It would be a mildly interesting anthropological research project to investigate some newly discovered animist tribe and to find out whether they have more ritual taboos, fewer, or about the same number as contemporary Western leftists. If one could find a way of counting the number of ritual taboos in a society.

Speaking of video games, they're starting to go after games like Grand Theft Auto 5 because of how it "portrays women." Nevermind the fact that this is a game that lets you murder, torture, rob, etc. We can't have women "mistreated" or "marginalized" as strippers and prostitutes in a game like that! This is a slippery slope that invariably leads to Hollywood feeling justified in putting puppy kicking into R-rated movies.

I'm confused by the last line, though the GTA5 fiasco... yeah, it's absurd. It's not even limited to 'how it portrays women', but 'there hasn't been a female protagonist in GTA5 yet! Why not? MISOGYNY!' Seriously, that's the charge. The idea is that a game THIS big, with THIS many sequels, surely must include a female main character at some point. And why haven't they? Well, they apparently hate women.

Which, of course, is just the old song with a new instrument. Previously: games have to be moral! They should only let you do moral things! THIS game lets you do immoral things. (Remember the response back then? 'Come on, Jack, it's just a game, it's fantasy?' It's not fantasy anymore, now it's Serious Social Stuff that Impacts How We View the World.)

"By itself," said O'Brien, "pain is not always enough. There are occasions when a human being will stand out against pain, even to the point of death. But for everyone there is something unendurable -- something that cannot be contemplated. Courage and cowardice are not involved. If you are falling from a height it is not cowardly to clutch at a rope. If you have come up from deep water it is not cowardly to fill your lungs with air. It is merely an instinct which cannot be destroyed. It is the same with the rats. For you, they are unendurable. They are a form of pressure that you cannot withstand. even if you wished to. You will do what is required of you."

"But what is it, what is it? How can I do it if I don't know what it is?"

O'Brien picked up the cage and brought it across to the nearer table. He set it down carefully on the baize cloth. Winston could hear the blood singing in his ears. He had the feeling of sitting in utter loneliness. He was in the middle of a great empty plain, a flat desert drenched with sunlight, across which all sounds came to him out of immense distances. Yet the cage with the rats was not two metres away from him. They were enormous rats. They were at the age when a rat's muzzle grows blunt and fierce and his fur brown instead of grey.

"The rat," said O'Brien, still addressing his invisible audience, "although a rodent, is carnivorous. You are aware of that. You will have heard of the things that happen in the poor quarters of this town. In some streets a woman dare not leave her baby alone in the house, even for five minutes. The rats are certain to attack it. Within quite a small time they will strip it to the bones. They also attack sick or dying people. They show astonishing intelligence in knowing when a human being is helpless."

There was an outburst of squeals from the cage. It seemed to reach Winston from far away. The rats were fighting; they were trying to get at each other through the partition. He heard also a deep groan of despair. That, too, seemed to come from outside himself.

O'Brien picked up the cage, and, as he did so, pressed something in it. There was a sharp click. Winston made a frantic effort to tear himself loose from the chair. It was hopeless; every part of him, even his head, was held immovably. O'Brien moved the cage nearer. It was less than a metre from Winston's face.

"I have pressed the first lever," said O'Brien. "You understand the construction of this cage. The mask will fit over your head, leaving no exit. When I press this other lever, the door of the cage will slide up. These starving brutes will shoot out of it like bullets. Have you ever seen a rat leap through the air? They will leap on to your face and bore straight into it. Sometimes they attack the eyes first. Sometimes they burrow through the cheeks and devour the tongue."

The cage was nearer; it was closing in. Winston heard a succession of shrill cries which appeared to be occurring in the air above his head. But he fought furiously against his panic. To think, to think, even with a split second left -- to think was the only hope. Suddenly the foul musty odour of the brutes struck his nostrils. There was a violent convulsion of nausea inside him, and he almost lost consciousness. Everything had gone black. For an instant he was insane, a screaming animal. Yet he came out of the blackness clutching an idea. There was one and only one way to save himself. He must interpose another human being, the body of another human being, between himself and the rats.

The circle of the mask was large enough now to shut out the vision of anything else. The wire door was a couple of hand-spans from his face. The rats knew what was coming now. One of them was leaping up and down, the other, an old scaly grandfather of the sewers, stood up, with his pink hands against the bars, and fiercely sniffed the air. Winston could see the whiskers and the yellow teeth. Again the black panic took hold of him. He was blind, helpless, mindless.

"It was a common punishment in Imperial China," said O'Brien as didactically as ever.

The mask was closing on his face. The wire brushed his cheek. And then -- no, it was not relief, only hope, a tiny fragment of hope. Too late, perhaps too late. But he had suddenly understood that in the whole world there was just one person to whom he could transfer his punishment -- one body that he could thrust between himself and the rats.

And then, just as he was on the verge of shouting frantically, over and over, "Do it to Julia! Do it to Julia! Not me! Julia! I don't care what you do to her. Tear her face off, strip her to the bones. Not me! Julia! Not me!'" -- he stopped.

Because in his mind, he saw the rats leave the cage. He saw them tearing into his face, his tongue, his eyes. And behind them, he could see with what could only be the last of his eyes the smug face of O'Brien. The face saying "I told you so." The face saying "Nothing can resist us, can resist me. Nothing."

In that moment, something died inside Winston Smith. The old man burned to ash, purged away. The shattered glass of the paperweight no longer surrounded him. Only the coral remained. The coral that had existed before Big Brother, before INGSOC, before Oceania. It was real. It was a fact.

"Somewhere," he found himself thinking, "coral is growing -- and there is nothing Big Brother can do to stop it. There is nothing O'Brien can do to stop it. It is what it is. It exists. Reality wins."

And in that moment, Winston realized that having one's face devoured by starving rats was far from the worst thing that could happen to a man. He realized that betraying reality was the worst thing that could happen to a man. He realized that living the rest of his life with the memory of O'Brien's smug, knowing face was worse, far worse even than being devoured by rats. For him, such a life would be unendurable. It would be a memory he could never withstand, even if he should wish to. It would be a living death.

"I will do what is required of me," he said. And in that moment -- that single, shimmering moment, he became free.

A smile split his cracked lips. "Checkmate, O'Brien," he said in a voice like whispering thunder. "I win."

He thought he heard the sound of a human being choking, but he could no longer be sure. The rats, O'Brien, Room 101, all seemed distant and irrelevant to him. Winston was falling upwards into enormous heights, away from everything. He was still strapped in the chair, but he had risen through the ceiling, through the walls of the building, through the sky, through the clouds, through the atmosphere, into outer space, into the gulfs between the stars -- always away, away, away from the rats. No one could touch him now. No one could hurt him. He was beyond them all. They had used their last trump, played their final card, and all for nothing. In the final play, Winston Smith held every card.

He felt a fire in his chest, a volcanic outpouring of pure love: love for the proles, love for his fellow-workers, love for the lady next door with her smells, love for the hollow-eyed thing that was once her little boy, love for the physical jerks instructor, love for the men who had beat him senseless in the cell. Love for his betrayer. Love for the rats. Love for O'Brien, the poor, sad fool. And at last love, love most of all, for Julia.

But no love for Big Brother.

Winston felt the cold touch of wire against his cheek. Through the darkness that enveloped him he heard another metallic click, and knew that the cage door had clicked open. He smiled. Somewhere, a familiar voice was crying out "Kill this thing!", but he no loger cared. Winston felt something like great hands pick him up, lift him into a warm red heart full of flame. He absorbed the fire within himself, gathered it into a single jet of flame and released it through his mouth.

With all his might he screamed out, "More rats!"

***

O'Brien was stood at his side, his own face a mask of dead flesh, his mouth agape at the magnitude of his defeat. Even as the starving rats tore away the flesh of the man once called Winston Smith, O'Brien knew that same Winston Smith had beaten him. Had beaten Room 101. Had beaten INGSOC and Oceania and Big Brother. And even though the body of Winston Smith would soon be gone, even though all human memory of Winston Smith would be expunged, he realized with horror that Winston Smith would always be with him. He himself could never forget. For all his days, until his very last breath, the smiling face of the man who had beaten him would be there, looking at him from the past with eyes full of pity and victory.

And where one Winston Smith had existed, others did.

"He who controls the past controls the future," gasped O'Brien. He turned from the chair, staggered away from the remains of what was once a man. Outside the door marked 101: the sound of raised voices and jackboots. Somwhere an alarm was sounding. Lights blazed brightly overhead. He fell to his knees.

Libs and Cons both quote from 1984 because the book basically has no real message. It's just a horror story, only because it deals with government people invest it with more importance than it deserves. You won't 'learn anything' about government or society from 1984 anymore than you will learn something about Romanian castles from Dracula.

Post a comment

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If
your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same
comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.

Reverse the order of the digits in 31, then type the answer using letters instead of numbers, all lower case. (required):